socialism

The Left’s Compulsion to Destroy

The Left’s Compulsion to Destroy

Recently, I had occasion to peruse the transcript of a speech I’d seen before, and with which a lot of political Internet prowlers are familiar. It was made in 2004 by Richard D. “Dick” Lamm, who was the governor of the state of Colorado from 1975 to 1987. I find this bit of oratory interesting not only because I relocated to that state in 1986, but because Lamm is a Democrat, and was fairly popular even among Republicans and conservatives (there being a marked distinction between the two).

The speech, which has become an almost iconic indictment of multiculturalism, was delivered at an immigration conference in Washington, D.C., and its focus was the downside of immigration in America, particularly the illegal variety. Lamm’s cynical message postulated how America might be systematically destroyed via multiculturalism.

“Here is how they do it: Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country.”

– Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm

Lamm went on to enumerate the components of a plan that he said would ensure America’s destruction. This included, among many other elements, encouraging immigrants to maintain their culture, ensuring that the fastest-growing demographic groups were unassimilable, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population; enrolling large foundations and businesses in subsidizing these efforts, and establishing the cult of victimology.

Finally, the former governor detailed two of the most important (and perhaps familiar) components: Making discussion of anything contrary to “cult of diversity” sensibilities off limits, and making it impossible to enforce America’s immigration laws.

Gov. Lamm said that such a plan should also “make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal, that there are no cultural differences.” I’ve never been reticent to state that some cultures are manifestly inferior to that in the West, which positively enrages leftists. I am confident in this assertion because it is invariably undesirable elements of their culture that compels so many people to emigrate to the West. In times past, their goal was to assimilate – to divest themselves of those undesirable elements of culture – and we encouraged them to do just that. As we can see, the opposite is occurring now in America, just as Lamm proscribed.

Writing for Breitbart, former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo cited a recent Forbes article which revealed that the Internal Revenue Service has been encouraging illegal aliens to steal or fabricate Social Security numbers for years. Their rationale, if you can believe it, was to ensure that they would file tax returns. This has resulted in billions of dollars in bogus tax refunds being collected by illegals, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Congressional efforts to initiate an investigation into this abuse were blocked by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which threatened massive

protests against “discriminatory practices” if such an investigation went forward.
Which effectively makes the Congressional Hispanic Caucus an enemy agency with a primary allegiance to something other than that to which its members pledged allegiance when they were sworn in as members of Congress.

On April 17, the New York Post related an account of how those at the highest levels our government conspired to cover up the kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Many have suspected that this was the case for some time, but now proof has been offered. These actions were outright treason – far worse than government officials in Germany warning the press off of reporting on the rape sprees carried out by Muslim men this past New Year’s Eve – but they were consistent with the whorish diplomatic policy American officials have carried on with that Islamic nation for many years.

It is practically common knowledge amongst conservatives that Barack Hussein Obama is a stealth saboteur who has situated members of the Muslim Brotherhood (an Islamist organization that has been plotting Islamic ascendency in America since 1928) in sensitive positions in our government. We’ve also learned over the last few years that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been selling America out piecemeal to the Muslim Brotherhood for decades. Other less prominent politicos, both Democrat and Republican, have engaged in similar practices with unfriendly nations and organizations which have compromised our sovereignty and national security – essentially conducting espionage under the guise of diplomacy.

Writing for the American Enterprise Institute on April 1, Leon Aron stated that an obscure “cultural” difference in perception between Western elites and citizens in their nations is causing the rift between those governing and the governed, driving the latter to embrace nationalistic tendencies and “populist demagogues on both the right and left.” He advised the community of Western leaders to start “adjusting its vocabulary and values to the point where it can talk to its people in ways that the latter will find credible, respectful, and understandable.”

I remain at a loss as to how Western leaders might package their betrayal, treason, and delivery of their constituents into chaos, poverty, and squalor in a way that they will find “credible, respectful, and understandable.” Given the deportment of Western leaders – particularly over the last decade – it would seem that they are being driven by a compulsion to destroy, rather than by a twisted ideology or even simple greed.

All of the foregoing gives rise to the question: How do these American would-be lords and ladies of the global elite expect to carry on, let alone preserve their power, once they have succeeded in destroying America?

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The West’s Compulsion for Societal Suicide

The West’s Compulsion for Societal Suicide

Perhaps it’s my twisted imagination, but I can’t help observing current geopolitical machinations and wonder what individuals from another juncture in history or even a non-Earthbound civilization might conclude about our society and, more importantly, those who currently hold power and preeminence among us.

There are things occurring on the geopolitical scene that simply do not merit debate over what is actually transpiring, yet on a daily basis, these are being misrepresented by political leaders, media, the press, and even religious leaders to such a degree that it is surreal beyond description.

One of the most noteworthy examples of this phenomenon has been our scurvy knave of a low-born, treasonous scoundrel president, Barack Hussein Obama, as he attempts to characterize Muslim populations as benign and assimilable. Specifically, I refer to Obama’s recent rhetoric in light of the massive uptick in terror attacks by Muslims over the last several years. He’s found it necessary to admonish Americans not to hold animosity nor suspicion toward “America’s Mooslims” as a result of their worldwide terror attacks, their ongoing invasion of Europe, and the tinderbox that they have made of the Middle East and parts of Africa. Presumably this is toward strengthening his argument for allowing untold numbers of Muslim “refugees” into the United States.

It bordered on hysterical (as in outrageously humorous) a couple of days ago when Obama reminded us once again of the “many contributions” that Muslims have made to the rich history of our country. I defy anybody to name one significant contribution that Muslims have made to this nation – with the qualifier that it is a positive contribution.

To the east, European socialist leaders refuse to acknowledge the damage to life, limb, and their economies being done by over a million invaders who should have been strafed as their raggedy columns approached the borders of prospective host nations.

“All of us together, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Copts, Evangelical brothers and sisters — children of the same God — we want to live in peace, integrated…”

– Pope Francis’ Easter Address, March 27

All want to live in peace, integrated? I beg to differ, since the Muslim faction included in Pope Francis’ Easter Address clearly have no desire to integrate.

I’ve always had a great respect for the Catholic Church, and I understand the reality of modern popes being political as much as spiritual leaders, but I am about a hair’s breadth away from declaring this pontiff an apostate Christian. In both his Christmas and Easter addresses, Pope Francis excoriated those who wish to prevent migrants from the Middle East and North Africa from entering Europe, even as they run roughshod over the nations of that continent. He has paid gratuitous, embarrassing deference to the world’s smirking, treacherous Muslim leaders, and although the pope has condemned the recent persecution (rape, maiming, murder, enslavement, etc.) of Christians in the Middle East by Muslims, he has spent just as much time misrepresenting Islam as benign as his contemporary political leaders have.

So is this pope stupid, naïve, or evil?

Last week, the Detroit Free Press reported that Muslim parents of elementary school students in Dearborn, Michigan became upset after their children received flyers promoting an Easter Egg hunt at a local church. While attending public elementary schools in New York during the 1960s, I cannot count the number of handouts I received for events celebrating religious holidays that my family did not celebrate. No one got intimidated, no one got offended, and no one went crying to The New York Times.

But you see, Muslims have made significant inroads into politics in Michigan, so they can afford to be uppity in that state. They’ve also become savvy to the practices employed by every other special interest group in the American left’s big tent: Claim persecution, gain sympathy, secure genuinely unconstitutional protections under the law, and then you’re free to persecute your political opponents.

So, the poor, intimidated little Muslim parents went to the press, complaining that their childrens’ virgin eyes falling upon these horrid, blasphemous Easter flyers was somehow a form of religious persecution that naturally violates the Constitution.

Clever, aren’t they? Well, that’s how it starts. Give it a decade or two, and Muslims in America will have earned the right to Sharia courts, to rape non-Muslim women at will, to kidnap non-Muslim children for use as sex slaves, and to behead American servicemen in broad daylight, just as they have in Britain, Europe, and Scandinavia.

For the record: Although a link to the Detroit Free Press story now defaults to the publication’s home page for some unfathomable reason, other online news outlets did pick it up.

Where those whom we have trusted with our governance and safety should now be ever more committed to the support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bearing true faith and allegiance to the same, it is apparently more important that they show solidarity with the miniscule number of Americans who oppose an obscure state law blocking individuals from using public bathrooms that don’t match their biological gender, and campaign against the scourge of microaggressions.

What might those from another time in history or some exotic, off-world civilization conclude about us? Clearly, that we in the West are suffering from a form of mass insanity manifesting in a compulsion for societal suicide.

Why any society, in any age, or on any conceivable world, would choose such a path is, I’m afraid, a question that’s above my current pay grade.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Problem is SOCIALISM… SAY it!

The Problem is SOCIALISM… SAY it!

The speed with which socialism can take an economy or government from viability to ruin is nothing short of astounding. When socialist regimes have widespread support or a mandate (or perceive that they have one or both), they enjoy the latitude to bring about this destruction even more quickly.

Last weekend, around 3.6 million Brazilians took to the streets to demand that socialist President Dilma Rousseff resign or face impeachment. Both Rousseff and Brazil’s former president – Lula da Silva, another socialist – have been implicated in a $3 billion ripoff of public funds engineered through Petrobras, the state-run oil company.

In Venezuela, another South American socialist paradise, the specter of corruption looms closer to home, with the everyday nightmare of grocery shopping making international headlines on a fairly regular basis these days. Between falling oil prices hobbling the oil-rich nation’s economy and the fact that socialists don’t know how to run anything other than into the ground, Venezuela’s supermarkets are usually empty, or have such long lines that patrons can literally spend an entire day shopping for food.

To add insult to injury, ID cards, birth certificates and fingerprint scanners are the methods by which an intrusive State ensures that only authorized shoppers are purchasing groceries in the right amount, and on the right day. In these state-run supermarkets, food is extremely inexpensive – unfortunately, it’s also extremely scarce. Black market food abounds, but it is ridiculously overpriced – a week’s pay for a steak, by one account.

Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, successor to the late proto-human socialist champion Hugo Chavez, explains away the endemic scarcity with the usual boilerplate leftist bilge: Smugglers who resell Venezuelan goods abroad, thieves and black market operatives have somehow managed to abscond with most of Venezuela’s food.

Tyrants, oligarchs, low literacy and the influence of Soviet-backed communist revolutionaries in the last century led to more popular acceptance of socialism in Latin American nations than in other parts of the hemisphere. In fairly well-developed countries such as Brazil and Venezuela, which began to come into their own economically over the last few decades, citizens have seen a curious trend of economic stultification that can be traced largely to their affinity for electing socialist politicians.

Socialists are cool, you see; they care about people, unlike those me-firster capitalist types. This argument plays well the younger and dumber one happens to be, on any continent.

Not to intimate that people in Latin America are stupid, but in some of these nations, centuries of the aforementioned tyrants and oligarchs maintaining a Napoleonic paradigm of governance deliberately sustained peasant castes and fostered poor education. Rigid class systems and vast chasms between impoverished majorities and entrenched, wealthy dynasties are among the reasons that this region was ripe for the insinuation of socialism and communism.

So, through no fault of their own, many in Latin America were far more susceptible to the con that is socialism than their neighbors to the north. They’re the region’s low information voters, and they were quite receptive to the socialist message, which promised them a way out from under the yoke of the oligarchs. It was an empty promise, but for ascendant socialist regimes, it’s all about securing power. Once that’s done, they renege on their promises and blame the international capitalist community – or smugglers, thieves, and black market operatives – for thwarting their noble designs.

In the United States, and Europe to a lesser extent, socialists simply dispensed with calling it “socialism.” Although Americans retained a healthy fear of communism throughout the 20th century, by the early 1900s, the framework for statism (socialism) was already being laid by monumentally conceited progressive politicians who had decided that their intellect and insight surpassed that of America’s founders. Today, while few of our elected officials would label themselves socialists, nearly all are effectively socialists based on their allegiance to the pantheon of bipartisan oligarchs. They sold phony altruism to the middle class, class envy and entitlements to the disaffected. Politicians threw restraint to the wind and began promising voters everything short of immortality.

While it may not appear so on its face, a rejection of socialism is the central issue of the present election cycle. The anger, outrage and disgust being expressed by voters is in response to pain; after several decades of encroaching socialism, the results of its attendant policies are now placing startling numbers of Americans in real adversity. If I were to make a list, I would probably start with the 96 million people – around half of the American workforce – who are out of work. (To me, this appears to exceed the government’s reported 5 percent unemployment rate, but I’ve never been that good at math).

While the two current GOP front-runners may not be articulating the evils of socialism and detailing how it has brought America to this unenviable juncture, what they are saying speaks to the symptoms, and this is why their words resonate with so many voters.

Last week in this space, I expressed frustration that no one among the GOP field is putting the name (socialism) to our pain. The fact that I am not a campaign strategist aside, I believe that this sorely needs to be done, because too many voters couldn’t even summarize what socialism is if asked. As in Hosea 4:6, Americans “perish for lack of knowledge.”

It isn’t enough to bray about the need to return to constitutional governance; if we are to extricate socialists from government, rank-and-file voters must know how to recognize them, and recognize the con. Only when Americans understand why socialism is antithetical to the rule of law and why it necessarily elicits a putrefactive effect on societies can they implement the necessary measures against it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Look to Britain – And Be Afraid

Look to Britain – And Be Afraid

In my youth, British television was all the rage among many of my peers. Perhaps the fact that there was a limited amount of swearing and nudity in the programming had something to do with it, but some of us were just as devoted to following “I, Claudius” and other ostensibly refined dramas as “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” or “Doctor Who.”

Since this was pre-Internet, altogether too many cable channels and a market that brings programming from pitch to premiere in a few hours, my peers and I didn’t know right off the bat that a lot of our beloved British shows had actually been aired for the first time some 12 to 15 years prior, and had long since ceased production.

Something odd that I noted about British TV’s serial dramas and comedies was a sense of grim resolve and even hopelessness many characters held with respect to their lot in life, their futures and an ever-intrusive government. I saw this as being in conflict with American sensibilities since, at that time, we still viewed ourselves as upwardly-mobile, quite hopeful and with at least some handle on our government.

Perhaps it was a “British thing,” I thought, owing to their history with a monarchy. Despite a few notable real-life British rags-to-riches stories, many Brits seemed reconciled to “their station,” something that was confirmed later as I personally encountered more and more British people.

I also noted something else, and that was the proliferation of people from central Asia, Africa and the Middle East on British TV. There were tons of Puerto Ricans on America’s East Coast where I was raised, but Puerto Rico was a commonwealth of the U.S., so it made sense that they would be represented in media. Slavery explained the millions of blacks, as did sharing a border with Mexico explain all the Chicanos.

But what motivation did the U.K. (and other European nations, I would later learn) have for importing vast numbers of unskilled people from the Third World into their major urban areas?

Well, silly, ignorant me. I guess I couldn’t be blamed given my tender age at the time. The grim resolve and hopelessness I’d seen among average British citizens wasn’t merely their stiff-upper-lip tradition. Nor was their acceptance of the deluge of Third Worlders merely guilt over their history of colonialism.

These were reflections of socialism. Although guilt over colonialism was indeed used as a propaganda tool to sell the malignant socialist agenda to European citizens, much of the same social justice propaganda as is being fed to Americans at present was fed to Europeans from the 1960s on: We’re wealthy compared to this lot, and if you don’t think we should extend our hospitality to them well, you’re just a big, fat racist.

At this point, I have to ask: Would you intentionally take millions of parasitic organisms into your body?

I didn’t think so …

Recently, police in Scotland arrested a man, charging him with “offensive” Facebook posts about Syrian “refugees” in Britain. The individual is being held under Britain’s Communications Act, which conveniently criminalized politically incorrect public statements and publications some years back.

Now that Europe is overrun with Muslim rape gangs, Muslim pedophilia rings and Muslim professional welfare cheats, we know how governments there respond to the chaos their grand, Utopian designs have wrought: They simply deny the problems exist, deny the causality with respect to their magnanimous inclusiveness, cry “racist!” at any who draw attention to the chaos – or simply have them arrested.

Those who have addressed the debate over America’s lax immigration policies and calls to admit untold numbers of mostly Muslim “refugees” into the country with contentions that entry into the U.S. is a “basic human right” need a serious debriefing on the constitutional roles of our federal elected officials and the concept of what constitutes a nation in the first place. I’m not going to identify any of these parties specifically, because my favored disposition where they are concerned is unprintable, so we know what that’s likely to get me.

One can understand how international socialists in Britain were such effective brainwashers since up until recently, the state-run British Broadcasting Company (BBC) produced all of the television programming in the United Kingdom. Now that we can see the brazen coalescing of these political influences in America among entities in government and business, it’s no surprise that our entertainment media are now rife with social justice themes, homoerotica and other subversive material.

There’s a key difference between Europe and America in this case, however: Europeans did not have the benefit of witnessing the rapid societal decline and loss of personal liberties socialist policies brought with them in nations other than their own. Despite ongoing denials on the part of European governments that Muslims had anything to do with the hundreds of rapes that took place in Cologne, Germany, and other cities this past New Year’s Eve, the reports of these occurrences – as well as countless other recent examples of socialist-fostered rot – are readily available for all Americans to see.

I seriously doubt that I could goad many WND readers into ingesting slow poison, arguing that failing to do so would demonstrate a horrid lack of compassion on their part for some obscure minority group. Speaking figuratively, this is precisely what international socialists accomplished with populations in Europe, and are attempting in America.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns